No they are not. A gun is no more inherently a weapon than any other inanimate object. More guns are sold to and used by civilians for sporting reasons everyday than have ever been used by civialians for offensive or defensive reasons. That's not just in the last year, or the last decade, or the last century. It's since the inception of the gun itself.

Actually...the inception of firearm(see fire lance and it's immediate off shoots/subsequent developments) was for warfare and since then their primary and widespread uses has been warfare(see handgonne and arquebus). In fact just the opposite could be argued. Only in the relatively recent history of firearms have they been primarily personally owned items for the common person and not weapons of war issued to troops or owned as a requirement for use in a militia (see brown bess). These examples while not the end all be all, are a pretty good outline of firearms usage and ownership from inception(~700AD) to transition into common private ownership(~1700)

Also you're arbitrarily restricting the definition of a weapon as something used against another person. On top of which you're making a false comparison. Qualifying all guns sold for sporting purposes against all guns USED (Not just sold) for offensive/defensive purposes. Do you have stats to support that conclusion or is it just speculation?

I just finished watching "Lonesome Dove". Capt. Gus McRae used his Remington 1858 as a weapon when he smacked the bar keep up along side his head for being rude to Capt. Call! And he didn't even need to pull the trigger for it to be an effective weapon!

Maybe it was a Colt 1851? Not sure, but it was a good weapon in that situation, regardless!

This argument simply does not hold water for average people. Ordinary usage of the word indicates otherwise.

By that logic, NOTHING is ever ANYTHING except an "inanimate object" until you actually use it for something.

A hammer is not a tool until you hit nails with it.

A car is not a vehicle unless you're driving it.

A sneaker is not a shoe unless you're wearing it.

It's astonishing to me how desperately we try to make our firearms into something they're not, especially since we seem to be the only ones in the world who care and certainly the only ones who believe it.

This is like the firearms worlds version of Schrödinger's cat. It's not dead or alive until you open the box.

It's not a weapon until you use it.

Unbelievable silliness.

In a lot of cases I'll agree with you but in this you're reaching for the sky and fallin short. Yes a hammer is a tool, a car is a car, a shoe is a shoe. But all that points out reality, that a gun is a gun. It's not like I'm out there saying a gun isn't a gun for Lord's sake. I'm callin it exactly what it is, a gun. But nothing, absolutely nothing is a weapon without use and/or intent. Yet, everything and anything including the previously mentioned teddy bear can be a weapon. So where do we draw the line in what we call weapons or what we call tools or what we call toys etc etc? The only place we can draw the line is with use and intent. And for civilians to generically refer to guns as weapons is no better then generically callin their skinnin knife a weapon. Because at the heart of things most guns are not and will never be a weapon.

When I go blow up some cans I use a toy not a weapon, when I hunt I use a tool not a weapon, when I CC THEN I have a weapon.

The OP is suggesting we as firearms/weapons/<insert subtype here> owners play the same game as the other side and add spin to the words we use. Trying to use smoke and mirrors does us no good for various reasons. In part , if we were to make a concerted effort as a community to disavow the idea that firearms are weapons by refusing to use that word to describe them, it hinders the idea of many 2A arguments that firearms are for self-defense and not only "sporting purposes".

It's one thing what you call them in everyday life, but playing political spin games and denying a core aspect of what firearms are is another

I may agree with this in principal , the reality is quite different . The left is winning the PR war and if we don't start playing by the same rules we will lose . ( no one wants new taxes but new revenues is OK ) wording matters ! As much as we don't like it , this garbage SELLS . This last election shows this to be true . Proceeding with blinders on hoping the 2nd amendment will speak for it's self is a very risky plan .

__________________As of this date 8-18-14 at 6:42am I became a proud grandfather I guess I'm officially old

Because at the heart of things most guns are not and will never be a weapon.

So if the intent when purchased is for protection, but it's never used it's not a weapon? Once again...do you have some sort of source that says most firearms purchased the sole intent is to shoot inanimate objects?

I may agree with this in principal , the reality is quite different . The left is winning the PR war and if we don't start playing by the same rules we will lose . ( no one wants new taxes but new revenues is OK ) wording matters ! As much as we don't like it , this garbage SELLS . This last election shows this to be true . Proceeding with blinders on hoping the 2nd amendment will speak for it's self is a very risky plan .

And yet in recent times, without playing word games and specifically including reference to keeping arms(weapons) for self defense( Heller) we have made strides on the 2A fronts.

Public Opinon seems to also be shifting see first link in article for poll results.

So what war is that the antis are winning again?

Last edited by sigcurious; November 28, 2012 at 07:20 PM.
Reason: Added link.

Yes a hammer is a tool, a car is a car, a shoe is a shoe. But all that points out reality, that a gun is a gun.

You completely changed my point. I didn't say a car is not a car, or a shoe is not a shoe.

I said, by the logic that a gun is not a weapon unless it is used a such, a car is not a vehicle unless it's being driven, a hammer is not a tool unless it's hitting nails and a sneaker is not a shoe unless you're wearing it.

Of course a "car" is a "car", a "shoe" is a "shoe" and a "gun" is a gun".

By your logic, a car is not a vehicle unless it's being driven. It's the exact same logic that a gun is not a weapon unless it's being used as one.

__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.

So if the intent when purchased is for protection, but it's never used it's not a weapon? Once again...do you have some sort of source that says most firearms purchased the sole intent is to shoot inanimate objects?

Did you not note in my ramblings that "intent" can establish certain things? Apparently not. As for numbers no I don't have hard and fast numbers sitting on the desk at hand. What I do have is the ability to realize that 100's of 1000's of critters die every year and millions of rounds are punched into paper, cans and all sorts of objects for the pure joy or competition of it. The numbers of times civilians that use or go intent on using guns for SD/HD pales in comparison. You tell me, do you think that guns are used more for SD/HD than for sporting and fun? Guess that makes all those who buy/own 28" barreled shotguns, SA sixguns, .22lr buyers, etc just really bad at making a choice of which gun a person really should have huh?

Brian, I see what your saying. But your description doesn't fit. By you're thinkin a rifle is a gun, a musket is a gun, a revolver is a gun, shotgun is a gun and it's all true, 100% accurate. Same as a car is a vehicle, a sneaker is a shoe. I'm not saying a rifle isn't a gun or a shotgun isn't a gun. But let's look at the car. There is no doubt that a car is a vehicle that can be a weapon. Can that be denied? So what does it take for it to become a weapon not just a vehicle? Use and/or intent maybe? The same thing it takes for a gun to be a weapon.

Guess that makes all those 28" barreled shotguns, SA sixguns, .22lr buyers, etc just really bad at making a choice of which gun a person really should have huh?

Assuming for a moment that all those are solely sporting guns, do you have supporting evidence that those are a majority of firearms sold? Or again is it speculation on your part about what firearms are bought and sold, and why they're bought and sold. Along with an arbitrary restriction that it's only a weapon if used against a person.

I don't he's saying that those are the most popular guns at all, nor that only "real" guns have a sporting purpose, but what I think he's getting at is that you can have a gun and not automatically be prepping for the fall of western civilization.

I think, just based on personal observation, that th firarms community has becom to overly focused on the self-defense, end of the world, the boys in blue berets are coming and nothing else.

Granted the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or sporting purposes, but that doesn't mean all guns should be thought of the tools of the resistance.

__________________
NRA Life Member
Ladyfriend: "I need help with the leaves in the yard"
Me: "Controlled burn?"
LadyFriend: "I forgot my Boy Scout turned into an infantry officer."

I don't he's saying that those are the most popular guns at all, nor that only "real" guns have a sporting purpose, but what I think he's getting at is that you can have a gun and not automatically be prepping for the fall of western civilization.

I think, just based on personal observation, that th firarms community has becom to overly focused on the self-defense, end of the world, the boys in blue berets are coming and nothing else.

Granted the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or sporting purposes, but that doesn't mean all guns should be thought of the tools of the resistance.

There's a difference in acknowledging that a firearm is inherently a weapon and not shying away from that, and saying that the only use for a firearm is as a weapon.

Just because it's a weapon doesn't mean you're "prepping for the fall of western civilization." by having it. It's simply not playing word games, to attempt to redefine something or refusing to acknowledge it's inherent nature.

I don't look at it as playing word games, I look at is as simply denying the antis, the media, whomever have you the chance to have something else to ding us on.

Example:

As previously stated I used to be a rifle merit badge instructor. I'm also a combat veteran. Now, holding court before 16 11 years olds on a rifle range is pretty cool. However, I also know that I was not only teaching them, I was also representing the entire firearms community to thier parents sitting behind the firing line. The word weapon was never mentioned, nor did I ever mention my military service outside of a humorous story concerning a platoon of GA National Guardsman attempting to herd goats. Colonel Cooper coined the term Hopolophobe, and I feel that by making firearms appealing to everyone, while still respecting thier ability to be used as weapons, we can eliminate hopolophobia from our society, or atleast give it the old college try.

Furthermore:

I don't want to say I regret, but when I turned 12 or 13, Pops who was career military, and constantly gone, very solemly explaind to me, that by giving me a Mossberg 590 I was now responsible for defending Mom, my big sister and the house while he was gone. Crossing that threshold was intense, and I personally never even broached the use of the rifle as a weapon in my merit badge classes, only that a rifle could be a deadly instrument if you violated the four "always rules."

All of the above is just my opinion, and I realize I'm in the minority here and mean to disrespect to any of the above posters and thier views on proper terminology.

__________________
NRA Life Member
Ladyfriend: "I need help with the leaves in the yard"
Me: "Controlled burn?"
LadyFriend: "I forgot my Boy Scout turned into an infantry officer."

Brian, I see what your saying. But your description doesn't fit. By you're thinkin a rifle is a gun, a musket is a gun, a revolver is a gun, shotgun is a gun and it's all true, 100% accurate. Same as a car is a vehicle, a sneaker is a shoe. I'm not saying a rifle isn't a gun or a shotgun isn't a gun. But let's look at the car. There is no doubt that a car is a vehicle that can be a weapon. Can that be denied? So what does it take for it to become a weapon not just a vehicle? Use and/or intent maybe? The same thing it takes for a gun to be a weapon.

You're confusing words.

A car is a vehicle. Even if it's used as a weapon, it's still a vehicle.

A gun is a weapon. Even if it's used to punch holes in paper, it's still a weapon.

The terms are not mutually exclusive.

You're not saying that a rifle isn't a gun. You're saying that a rifle isn't a weapon unless it's used as such.

That's no more true than a car is not a vehicle unless it's used as such. It can be used as a weapon, but it's not ALWAYS a weapon and it IS ALWAYS a vehicle, even when it's used as a weapon. It is a vehicle by basic design. The basic design is not "car", it is vehicle. A truck is a vehicle. A motorcycle is a vehicle. A car is a vehicle that is a specific design type. Lots of vehicle are not cars but all cars are vehicles.

A gun can be used as NOT a weapon but it's ALWAYS a weapon, even when it's not used as one. The basic design is not "firearm" or "gun", it is weapon. Lots of weapons are not guns but all guns are weapons.

__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.

IMO, the ones wanting to call all guns weapons are playing the word games. Look, everyone is different and while you seem to be stuck on requesting numbers that would take a team of statisticians a year to figure out I will say I believe more guns are sold for sporting reasons than defensive reason, you think other wise. That's all fine and dandy, we're all different from different circles. But as long as you have ANY gun, let alone the large numbers we have today, designed and/or purchased without the slightest inclining towards offensive or defensive reason than you can not call all guns weapons. Do you think Ruger gave SD/HD the slightest thought when it developed the #1? What about all those Heritage SA .22's out there? Savage and Remington bolt actions? Marlin Lever actions? So you think AR's, semi auto pistols and short barreled riot guns are sellin to folks worried about SD/HD and the 2A at a higher rate than old fashioned guns to Joe Blow redneck wanting to kill his own meal or Richard Richdude wanting that top of the line trap and skeet gun. Fine, don't buy it but fine. But you can not say that all guns are designed and/or purchased by folks worried about SD/HD so you can't call all guns weapons. It's like callin a Yugo a race car. Sure you can use one for that but anyone that looks at one and says "look at that cool race car" would be an idiot.

A car is a vehicle. Even if it's used as a weapon, it's still a vehicle.

A gun is a weapon. Even if it's used to punch holes in paper, it's still a weapon.

The terms are not mutually exclusive.

You're not saying that a rifle isn't a gun. You're saying that a rifle isn't a weapon unless it's used as such.

Look at the vehicle analogy for a minute. Different vehicles are built for different purposes. Vans for carrying small loads, passenger cars for carrying small numbers of people, semis for carrying large loads of freight, buses for carrying large loads of people. Can you carry 100 people in a tractor trailer load in a pinch? Sure. Does it make it a bus? No. You could call it a truck. You can call a semi, bus or pickup a truck, but you can't call a car a truck.

Similarly, there are purpose built firearms. There are hunting rifles, military rifles, defensive handguns, target handguns, for example. There are some firearms that are simply not made for use as a weapon, like an olympic 22 target pistol- it is purpose built to shoot holes in paper.

So, sure, shooting a Glock 23 at a paper target doesn't mean it isn't a weapon. It's like using a semi to carry a pallet of lime when a pickup truck could have been used to carry the same load. A Glock 23 is a weapon. You can call it a sidearm, pistol, autoloader- it is all these things, but you ca't say it isn't any of those things.

But the 22 pistol or rifle that is purpose built for target is hardly suitable for use as a weapon. It's like breaking down the pallet of lime and carrying it on a formula one car. Yeah, it will work. But it's really not anywhere near its intended use. So, like a race car is not a truck, a target pistol is not a weapon.

A gun is a weapon because almost all of them are designed to kill, injure, or otherwise "Stop" something. My Glock 19 is a weapon because it's #1 purpose is to protect myself and my family. The Anshutz target rifle I used to shoot on the rifle team, conceivably might not be a weapon since it's primary purpose is to be used to punch holes in paper. Though I don't see many people calling it a hole punch.

I remember going through this when I used to play paintball in the mid-90's until early 2000's. They were trying to use the politically correct term paintball marker instead of paintball gun. The problem is, the only people who called it a marker were paintball players. People who didn't play, saw a gun that shot paintballs.

Us changing our lingo from weapon to pistol/rifle/revolver/shotgun/gun/whatever will do absolutely nothing to change the image of firearms. Those who are shooters know what these objects are. Those who are not see weapons. Back when people carried daggers and swords for self defense, were these not weapons? Technically, most firearms produced are primarily used as weapons. I understand that I shoot at targets far more than people with my Glock (never shot a person, don't want to shoot a person) but the primary reason I have it is to use it against someone who wishes me or my family harm. It is a weapon.

There's a time and a place for political correctness. This isn't one of those times or places. I call a spade a spade, and a weapon a weapon.

Whether a sports car used for fun on the weekend, an SUV or minivan for hauling the kids, a pickup for pulling the camper, or a truck designed to haul 40,000 pounds or more of freight they are all vehicles. Even a Formula One race car or a motorcycle falls into the same class. Their purpose is secondary to their classification as such.

Guns are the same. All fall into the same class; and, that class is weapons. Purpose is secondary to their classification as such.

Whether a sports car used for fun on the weekend, an SUV or minivan for hauling the kids, a pickup for pulling the camper, or a truck designed to haul 40,000 pounds or more of freight they are all vehicles. Even a Formula One race car or a motorcycle falls into the same class. Their purpose is secondary to their classification as such.

Guns are the same. All fall into the same class; and, that class is weapons. Purpose is secondary to their classification as such.

This is one of the best posts of the thread. A Glock is a weapon and a pistol, it's not a rifle. A standard AR-15 is a rifle and a weapon, it's not a pistol. A Glock and an AR have similar purposes, but are built for different situations.

Whether a sports car used for fun on the weekend, an SUV or minivan for hauling the kids, a pickup for pulling the camper, or a truck designed to haul 40,000 pounds or more of freight they are all vehicles. Even a Formula One race car or a motorcycle falls into the same class. Their purpose is secondary to their classification as such.

Guns are the same. All fall into the same class; and, that class is weapons. Purpose is secondary to their classification as such.

Correct , there purpose does not matter .

Car , truck , mini van , there classification is motorized vehicles .

Pistol , rifle , shotgun , there classification is firearms .

Car , truck , mini van can be weapons but they are vehicles

Pistol , rifle , shotgun can be weapons but they are firearms

A weapon is a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage .

A weapon is something used to gain an advantage or to defending oneself in conflict or contest .

Weapon is to broad a term . If I say I have a weapon , what does that mean ?

It means

Quote:

I have something designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage .

It does not mean I have a gun . It might mean I have a gun , It could mean I have a golf club .

__________________As of this date 8-18-14 at 6:42am I became a proud grandfather I guess I'm officially old

This email link is to reach site administrators for assistance, if you cannot access TFL via other means. If you are a TFL member and can access TFL, please do not use this link; instead, use the forums (like Questions, Suggestions, and Tech Support) or PM an appropriate mod or admin.

If you are experiencing difficulties posting in the Buy/Sell/Trade subforums of TFL, please read the "sticky" announcement threads at the top of the applicable subforum. If you still feel you are qualified to post in those subforums, please contact "Shane Tuttle" (the mod for that portion of TFL) via Private Message for assistance.

This email contact address is not an "Ask the Firearms Expert" service. Such emails will be ignored. If you have a firearm related question, please register and post it on the forums.